BS: Costa Terror

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 06:28 AM

"They even bomb their own people..."

Whoever you bomb, it's always your own people.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 03:21 AM

'The enemy of my enemy is my brother' I believe that is a saying originating from the Middle East.

Over the last 60 years western and other governments have armed the enemies of their enemies, offered them funding and training.

Why should we be surprised that we find the weapons turned back on us.

Strict controls on weapons exports is no longer the answer, all the stuff is out there already.

Governments of all kinds seem blind to see what happens when you sell/provide arms idescriminently.

What is now different is that the terrorists are making use of modern technology and raising the anti. They are linking up in ways we never thought possible and doing things that were never thought possible.

Their thinking/reasoning is totally alien to most of us. They even bomb their own people (Saudi for example). They come from all religeons.

Even if we did get our Governments to agree to negotiate, then with whom will they negotiate. The governments of countries who have known terrorist groups inside their countries are unlikley to put their hands up and volunteer for talks as their are most likely to be splinter factions who would disagree and go on and make an attack to prove their own point.Viz the Real IRA.

So we cannot negotiate with them. Nor can we bomb them out of existance, nor can we invade every country harbouring them. Even soft options like trade embargoes dont work.

These organisations are able, intelligent and well funded and are constantly looking to make a new incident more horrific than the next. I only think it is a matter of time before they get hold of a device such as a battlefield nuclear weapon (small but horribly effective) from a country that has no control over its own arms arsenal and use it. After all in the latest incident no one noticed 10 bombs being placed so how much easier for the placement of just one.

Sorry folks I dont have any answers to all this,just putting thoughts down on paper, I find it very depressing that the Pandora's Box is truly open.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 05:01 PM

'Even handed' would invariably include the option that we bomb and sanction Israel into compliance.
It would not be on my wish list for the region, but I am indebted to you for bringing in this added dimension dimension to the discussion, Teribus.

Most people (rightly or wrongly), believe that terrorism is carried out by a minority of people, but that it can be condoned by many in the absence of any other tangible solutions.
The moderate element within Islam, just like Bin Laden, want the Palestinian issue sorted out. They are also sympathetic to other issues contained in Bin Laden's wide ranging list, as contained in that letter, above.

I don't think anybody on this forum, including myself, really believe that terrorism ban be wiped out totally, whether with brute force, or by negotiation; hence my prediction of 'the acceptable level'.

Some of them hate us, Teribus. Fair enough, some of us hate them back. That doesn't mean we blow their countries to kingdom come, and make them conform to our way of viewing the world.
As Halliburton and the likes re-construct all the way to the bank, the more fundemental of our beloved Christian fraternity, are dealing out God (he who has no Gods before him)to the meek with every single bowl of soup, and if I could be bothered later, I'll direct you to a couple of sites where you can confirm this for yourself. (alternately you could type in something like 'Bringing the Salvation of Jesus back to the Unbeliever)....

... ahh to hell with it... here's oneClick here and be saved

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 03:56 PM

Doug...Sorry but I am unable to respond to your post,as Ican make no sense of it.
I would recommend,cold drinks,a darkened room,and no TV news or newspapers until things improve .   Best wishes Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 03:12 PM

Some of us are maybe learning to be a bit more discriminating. With luck it might catch on.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 01:33 PM

Usually, with a medium position asking for more than a single minded approach, you can expect to get flak from both sides. What have I done wrong to be cited with praise from both sides for a sub-part of my position?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 01:32 PM

The thing is, that's very much the same kind of thing that has sometimes been said, Wolfgang, by people seeking to sort-of-justify anti-semitism, or racial prejudice generally. There are always going to be some people who fit the negative stereotype.

That doesn't mean that, coming from a Muslim it isn't very fair comment. But it's so easy to spin the argument into something which isn't fair. (And, obviously I'm not suggetsing you are doing that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 01:19 PM

Amos, BTW, was the first poster in the WTC thread who did a quick analysis, two hours after the event:

Osama Bin Laden announced three weeks ago that his people would launch an unprecedented attack against the United States. The rationale was retribution for the US' support of Israel.
...
            I cannot imagine what the scenario Bin laden's plannersa could have had in mind would be in terms of benefit to their people or their concerns. If this analysis of the source of these attacks is concerned, Bin laden himself will be buried in a bunker before a year is out. His people will not benefit and may in fact support grievous harm because of his psychotic and juvenile actions...

For a two hours after the event analysis this is still extremely good.

From another German liberal newspaper (Sueddeutsche Zeitung). A German Muslim writes:

" (I'm angry) about the distorted picture the media paint of Islam. But this distorted picture would never have come into the foreground if not enough Muslims, terrorists, theologians, heads of governments, corresponded exactly to this caricature of Islam, that annoys the believers and the knowledgeable. There may be a concept of the Islam as enemy, but far worse is that there is a type of Islam talking and acting as if being the enemy."   

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 01:09 PM

"But a blow for the morale it would be on the long run.

Actually I think a dead Osama Bin Laden would be no loss to them whatever. Movements of this sort are typically built round dead founders. Founders who stay alive too long are just a nuisance. It mightbgve a flip to morale onthisnside, just as the caopture of Sadam did - but once it became clear that things were in no way better as a result, that would soon disperse.

And Doug - when did I ever say anything about "negotiating with terrorists", more especially in this context. (In the context of situations like Northern Ireland there are different issues involved, and there's a pretty wide consensus that the negotiations that led uip to the Good Friday Agreement were a good thing.)

I suggest you have another look at that quote I gave in this post up the page, which explained the point I've been trying to make pretty clearly. Then maybe read the article it comes from, by a pretty dispassionate and articulate academic who isn't flying any flag for Al Qaeda.

And honestly Doug - there is no evidence whatsoever that Al Qaeda was operating in any part of Iraq under Saddam's control. I think you'd find it impossible to find anyone who knew anything about Iraq who disagreed with that. It's about as sensible as suggesting the Ku Klux Klan were really running thing in Haiti under Papa Doc.

And that quote Wolfgang gave in his last post is very apposite too.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: DougR
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 12:48 PM

Akenator: no offence, to you either McGrath, but it seems to me that you are both wandering through life with blinders on. If you REALLY think you can negotiate with terrorists, I believe you are very wrong in your thinking.

I agree with Teribus and Wolfgang's position. Appeasement is not the answer. The only way to defeat terrorism is to eliminate it.

The argument that the terrorists struck in Spain because of Spain's backing the Bush administration is all wet too IMO. After all, aren't those who are so opposed to the U.S. and it's allies removing Saddam, constantly preaching that Iraq had no connection to AlQuida prior to the invasion? And Alkenaton, if you can provide proof that AlQuida was not operating in Iraq prior to the invasion, would you kindly produce it?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 12:28 PM

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

It was frighteningly clear the day after 9-11 that we were up against a distributed, amorphous and shape-changing enemy. Our desperation to be able to name the head of it is a leftover from our ancient practices of waging war against an identified and governed group, an organisam with a head. The current effort is more like fighting the war against cockroaches: there is no Head Roach, nor do they have boundaries or fixed chains of command and control. The one way we know of to fight them is by being impeccable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 12:18 PM

From a commentary in the Frankfurter Rundschau of today (similar leaning as the Guardian):

"To believe Islamistic terror only aims to chase the occupiers from Iraq could turn out to be the wrong inference. The Iraq war like the Middle-East conflict for Al Qaeda are only means to the end of fighting against 'crusaders and zionists', against the Western civilisation. Islamism is no antiimerialist national liberation movement but it aims to the foundation of the Islamic theocracy. By fanning the flames of the fight of cultures itz wants to summon its troops to finally lead them to the decisive battle. Islamism hates the West not for what it does but for what it is: a liberal (that's considered a good word in Germany, from the left to the right), secular organisation with equal rights for men and women....
...It is getting more and more urgent to ally with moderate Islam in order to develop alternatives to democracy and to rob Islamism of its basis."

The quick reaction of the new Spanish government will turn out to be wrong sooner or later. The worst we could have is a race of Western countries to give in more and more quickly to Al Qaeda's/Islamism's demands. Nobody will win that race but all will lose.

Bert Brecht (in a very different context): He who does not share the fight will share the defeat.

(Sigh: If only the foremost Western fighter would not be so utterly stupid in theirs actions)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 11:43 AM

But a blow for the morale it would be on the long run.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 11:11 AM

And that's another good article, Wolfgang - and here's a particularly thought-provoking and chilling paragraph from it:

"There is no organization as such that you can call al-Qaida now, but rather followers who believe in the ideas of bin Laden and can organize themselves in small cells and carry out attacks."

Fantasies about destroying Al Qaida at a blow by catching up with Bin Laden and his entourage are just that, fantasies.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 11:02 AM

Al-Qaida Mutates Into Web of Terrorists (Guardian)

The al-Qaida terrorist network, its command structure hit hard by Washington's war on terrorism, is mutating into a hard-to-define web of Islamic militants who share Osama bin Laden's ideology and goals even if they operate under other names.

Al-Qaida connections have emerged from terror attacks in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and now Spain, fueled by a recruiting drive by radical Muslims who fought with bin Laden in Afghanistan, security officials told The Associated Press.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:52 AM

Good article.

(Sorry about what comes, but I just didn't want to resist the temptation:)
What ist a terrorust? A terrorist after two years in the good sea air at Guantanamo.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:42 AM

Here's a quote from an article by the director of the International Policy Institute at King's College London, Professor Michael Clarke - A war of nerves.   I think he sets out very clearly the point that trying to deal with problems is not the same as "negotiating with terrorust":

"...governments must not neglect the third element - political process. Politicians such as José María Aznar too easily confuse this with the horror of "negotiating with terrorists".

"But political dialogue is not directed at the psychopathic mentality of those who would kill indiscriminately. It is designed to divorce terrorists from their potential bases of wider support by indicating to ordinary people that the issues terrorists claim to fight for are susceptible at least to political debate.

"Terrorists gain greatest popular support when they can fairly claim to have no other voice..."

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:41 AM

Sorry that should be "fundamentalism"

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:39 AM

Ah, well, yes equally deep thinking Jim,

While I would tend to agree with you that, "Not all of Islam supports Bin Laden, nor fundementalism, for that matter." - they are not the ones who are wandering the planet blowing innocent bystanders to bits.

And to answer a question you asked earlier - So far I have not heard the moderate voice of Islam openly and roundly condemn Al-Qaeda's and similar like minded group's interpretation of Islam. But then as you state these moderate Muslims, like Osama, also believe in the ideal of a totally Islamic world - I don't, never will.

I also believe that today's practice of christianity does not demand total conversion to Christianity - Anywhere. Might have done once upon a time, in fact not for sometime, definitiely not now.

Now to progress to the bit about UN Resolutions.

Yes, by all means, let us win, "The hearts and minds", and "respect" of all those moderate Muslims by pre-emptively telling Israel to get her finger out and adhere to all relevant UN resolutions.

But in doing that we would then have to engage in the process of winning, "The hearts and minds", and "respect" of all Israelis by also pre-emptively telling all those Arab countries to get their collective fingers out and adhere to all relevant UN resolutions applicable to them with regard to the State of Israel.

Or is that concept just a little too even handed for you to grasp.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 07:41 AM

Yes well, deep thinkers like yourself have a habit of believing their own assumptions, and then acting pre-emptively upon them.

Not all of Islam supports Bin Laden, Teribus, nor fundementalism, for that matter. The hearts and minds that could be won by pre-emptively telling Israel to get her finger out and adhere to a few UN resolutions, herself, would go a long way towards gaining a bit more respect among more moderate Muslims, who believe in the ideal of a totally Islamic world, just as Christianity has a habit of believing that it try to force itself down everybody's throat that it comes across.

Perhaps you could direct me to a web site that explains to me why you are so much against the clearing up of the Israeli question.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 07:30 AM

Ake - sorry for the insult!
Pax
Johnny :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 06:32 AM

Hi Jim,

Does that mean that he wants all of us (western civilisation) "to deal with us (adherants to his own particular interpretation of Islam) and interact with us (adherants to his own particular interpretation of Islam) on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation", before or after we have:

A. Wipe out the State of Israel, or mutely stand by while others do it.

B. Convert to Islam

C. Accept the rule Sharia Law

Personally, I believe he meant after the above had been accomplished.

One piece of good advice he does give us from his "good book" as interpreted by himself -

"So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior ( in victory )if you are indeed (true) believers" [Quran 3:139]

All depends what you are a true believer in - Doesn't it?

PS pleased to hear that all those Islamic Banks don't charge interest on the loans they dish out.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 05:39 AM

Don't think you read this bit, Teribus: "We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation".

Lets hope, in that case, that you never emigrate to Australia

I have no wish to even search for a site of some distinguished, reverred and respected Islamic Cleric/Immam/Mullah, Teribus, never mind direct you to it.

Is there any particular reason you think that I should?

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 05:30 AM

Another chilling reading is the manifesto of the jihad, as 'Milestones' by Sayyid Qutb has been named. read it if you want to know how far Al Qaeda intends to go:

online English version

Just chose one chapter and start reading.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 05:03 AM

Fair enough Jim,

As I read it all we have to do is:

A. Wipe out the state of Israel, or mutely stand by while others do it.

B. Convert to Islam

C. Accept the rule Sharia Law

Seem reasonable? Those demands delivered as absolutes, with compliance to be determined by Osama.

DON'T THINK SO NOT AS LONG AS MY ARSE POINTS DOWNWARDS.

Now can you direct me to the site of some distinguished, reverred and respected Islamic Cleric/Immam/Mullah who has come out in print to denounce this rubbish for exactly what it is?

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 10:25 PM

Akenaton and Amos: Re "The only hope is for the West to address all the obvious wrongs which they have perpetrated in the Middle East. Show the Muslims that we dont want to destroy their historic culture."
I had forgotten that the 'wrongs' and the 'remedies' were already set out, and went searching: Bin Laden's Letter To The American People - Novenber 2002.

It makes chilling reading, but the West could certainly consider some of the points. Just because Bin Laden has said them, doesn't necessarily invalidate the grieviances.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:41 PM

The global capitalism/ Islamic culture conflict is one which there does seem to be no apparent common ground to appeal to, and in this respect, akenaton, I do fear for the future.
Doing things for the common good is also not part of any present political agenda, and this does not particularly bode well, as least in the short-term, neither.

I could not imagine pleasing/containing/appeasing every terrorist grouping on the planet, and as such, I suspect, there will always be some sort of terrorist threat out there.

But we are steadily being de-sensitised, and in time we will learn to live with our ever changing circumstances.

It will keep us from worrying about the minimum wage, the state of the health services. and so on.

(.... I have the television on in the background here, and I just heard a CNN interviewer asking an Iraqi lady, "What is it like going to bed at night, not knowing if you are going to wake up alive or dead, in the morning?")
It looked a bit like Christiane Amanpour, but I wouldn't swear to it!

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:19 PM

The problem is...That even if we sort out all the historical wrongs,we are still leftwith the conflict between global capitalism and the Islamic culture.
To survive ,global capitalism requires new markets and new cheap labour to exploit,and for Islam to survive, its followers must be kept away from "Western values",for example ,the treatment of women and children as "sex objects".
As neither the capitalists nor the Moslems appear willing to give way, a Jehad seems inevitable.
People dont seem to have grasped the fact that the terrorists have the upper hand .They can pick their time to strike, they are anonymous, and who knows,they may already have the small phial of biological agent they need,to change the world for ever.
The difference between the Nazis and the terrorists is,the Nazis required a huge army, navy, and airforce,to attempt to dominate part of Europe, whereas the terrorists only require a little bit of luck to
dominate the word...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:08 PM

I wouldn't have thought that sorting out Palestine would be rewarding them for not bombing us. It was never set up properly in the first place.
It would appear that vested interests have steered the agenda there since the Husayn-McMahon understandings.

Why can't we just concentrate a bit more on on sorting it out, simply because it is the right thing to do?
The rewards are what we will have, as the world settles down to what may yet be called 'an acceptable level of terrorism'.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 06:50 PM

Removing the things that help the terror organisations recruit people isn't a way of rewarding them - it's the last thing they want to see happen. But the important thing is sort things out without wasting time, because that just makes it possible for them to claim that good things like that only happen because of the violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 06:31 PM

"You love life, we love death"

This is in effect a paraphrasing of the observation that Ho Chi Minh once made, in that America (and by association these days, its allies) could never prevail, because they (we) are too sentimental about their (our) dead.

Rough thing to say, but as has been proven in Spain, he identified an Achilles Heel, that, if the powers that be don't (for one) settle down and sort out the Israeli/Palestinian question, which all militant Islamic groups point to as a source of inspiration, Bin Laden and his cronies will continue to exploit.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 05:14 PM

Here's a link to an article in the Catholic weekly in England, The Tablet, which takes a rather different and quite encouraging stance on the relationship between Islamic communities and their neighbours in non-Islamic countries - The Celtic cross and the crescent

Ireland's Catholics were assimilated into Britain with ease, thanks to respect for their beliefs, strong leadership and school provision. There is a lesson to be learned here if Muslims are to be similarly welcomed...

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 04:16 PM

The only hope is for the West to address all the obvious wrongs which they have perpetrated in the Middle East.
Show the Muslims that we dont want to destroy their historic culture.


Ake:

I think this is a grand idea, but the devil will surely be in the details. Do you have anything more concrete? Naming the wrongs and the remedies thereto woul dmake it easier to understand what you have in mind.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 03:54 PM

Johnny...Naw ye widnae be richt, Ahm as Scottish as the heatheRRRRR
                  Aw the best ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 03:47 PM

Wolfgang ...You have my position in a nutshell,I did not mean to give the impression that appeasment was all the West could do to nullify the terrorist threat.
Not all the people of the Middle East are fundamentalist lunatics, and by changing our policy to wards them,trying to prove that we are not merely money grubbing warmongers,we may be able to undermine the authority of the fanatics. The people themselves never want war ,but are always lead there by their masters ,be they Moslem or Christian.
No matter what Teribus says,and I have great respect for his spirit of optimism,confrontation is not an option,it will alienate ordinary Moslems even more and drive them into the arms of the fundamentalists.
Also as has been proved in Spain is is physicaly impossible to fight an enemy like Al Quaeda with brute force "Softly Softly Catchee monkey"
In reply to Teribus,Modern Capitalism is different from even a decade ago,and now depends to a large extent on public confidence and the willingness of people to spend and invest.
My real fear is that a few biological attacks would cause such panic that "our system" would collapse. I believe that biological attacks could have been undertaken in the past, but must have been felt to be Counter productive at that time. A position that wont alway apply.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:50 PM

"You love life, we love death"
I don't know how these words from the Al Qaeda tape have been translated into English, but you'll get the idea.

Those here arguing for appeasement are both right and wrong in my eyes. It depends upon who you have in mind with that politics. If you think Al Qaeda will stopp using terror attacks when some demands (retreat from Afghanistan, Iraq; solution of Israel/Palestininas problem, etc.) are fulfilled you are naive. They will not stop. The list of demands will grow with each success of a terror attack: Elimination of Israel as a state; paying trillions of Dollars for decades of cheap oil; release of all sentenced terrorists; introduction fo the sharia in all countries with a Muslim population of more than 20 %. The list is potentially endless.

Just to give you an idea, there are leaflets distributed in Germany saying the sooner we realise that there is only one religion the more peaceful the transition for us. Would you be ready to do anything demanded just to be sure that there will be no new terror attack? I hope not. Like with an individual attacker there is a limit for most people when they would start to fight back and not to give in.

Bin Laden (and likeminded) have learned one lesson in Mogadishu in 1993: A dozen or so dead American soldiers can change America's politics. That is the deepest sense of the line I have cited above. Western countries are sensitive to losses of human life, therefore they can be blackmailed with terror or threat of terror. An individual fighting with complete disregard for his own health is usually a more efficient fighter than someone not inclined so.

Ake has once described the appeasement position in another thread (I paraphrased for I haven't found it): Let us fulfill all reasonable demands and hope then that the threat goes away. Very understandable but completely wrong politics. You have to decide before what you want yourself and then draw a line and fight back when that line is crossed. You have to make clear beyond any doubt that terror will never reach its goals. The Bin Laden's/Hitler's of this world only understand that language.

If you look, however, at the whole population from which the terrorists come (Arabs, Muslims, or whatever) an appeasement politic is a good politic. The terrorists are a very minor percentage of all the population they came from. Most others from that population would never go that far. A sizable minority however rejoices more or less open with each act of terror. A clever politic will try to ensure that the terrorists are separated from the hearts of the population they came from. So to take away grievances or injustices is a good idea.

The politics of the Western countries should define what is wrong in our politics independent of terror acts and right those wrongs. But the immediate response to terror acts must be strong and make clear that nothing at all is gained by these acts. The majority must see that a goal which is reachable by peaceful politics can become unreachable by terror. That's how learning works. An appeasement politic alone gives the wrong signals.

That's why I still think it was a good idea to invade Afghanistan for to show other countries that direct support of terror will have immediate consequences. And that's why I still think that invading Iraq was a bad idea for it shows other countries that even without a direct connection to terrorists they can be invaded with not very convincing (to put it mildly) reasons. If you know you might be invaded anyway that'll only make you more stubborn.

And that's why I think the future rpime minister of Spain has given an awfully wrong signal. I think that getting the Spanish troops back from an ill founded war is the correct action. But to announce such an action immeadiately after the Madrid attack puts other European countries (and in the long run even Spain) in unnecessary danger.

Neither giving in nor demonstration of superior strength alone will win over terrorism. The balance of both makes a good policy.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 11:50 AM

As for the emancipation of women, recent development in our society, patchy, or not, "our system" allows it and encourages it. Fundamental Islamists would not. And Fundamental Christianity? (Both cases you could find some people to which that label could be applied who would, and some who wouldn't."

"There is no way on this earth that fundamantalist groups like Al-Qaeda could bring down "western civilisation". My worry centres around the possibility that western civilisation might move into a self-destructive mode in the process of responding to the threat from such groups.

And the analogy that I have in mind is of Nazi Germany, where a large part of "western civilision" did precisely that, in the process of responding to another kind of fundamentalism. (That's an analogy, and if course analogies are not intended as suggesting that things and situations are identical. Just that in some way the one provides an illustration of a possible scenario.)

Some people think that the right way to respond to a crisis is to look on the bright side ("we can never be defeated"), and that this is necessary to maintain morale. Others prefer to deal with it differently ("we will never surrender"). I suppose it's a matter of temperament as much as anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 10:36 AM

"My central worry is that we might act in ways that actually strengthen the ability of people like that to destroy, and that in fact we have been doing that over the last couple of years."

Destroy what Kevin? There is no way on this earth that fundamantalist groups like Al-Qaeda could bring down "western civilisation", I most certainly do not ascribe to the views held by Akenaton of either their ability or their power to do that.

As we established agreement earlier on with regard to the fact that there is no negotiated settlement with respect to Al-Qaeda, and that they have been attacking us since the mid-nineties, then it would not appear that we have any other choice but to fight them.

As for the emancipation of women, recent development in our society, patchy, or not, "our system" allows it and encourages it. Fundamental Islamists would not.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 10:04 AM

"...it didn't take long to put the matter to rights either." I suppose that's one way to describe the Second World War.

Who's talking about "those who sympathise with the viewpoint of the Taliban or Al Qaeda"? My central worry is that we might act in ways that actually strengthen the ability of people like that to destroy, and that in fact we have been doing that over the last couple of years.

As for the emancipation of women, that is an extremely recent development in our society, and over the whole of what can reeasonably be called "our system" around the planet, it's still pretty patchy.

It just seems to me that we are more likely to preserve and develop the good things in our way of life, if we appreciate that they aren't built into us irreversably, in some way analogous to a genetic code. If we make the wrong mistakes we could well lose them. I'd have thought in fact, Teribus, we'd have been completely in agreement about that, even if we might disagree about some of the things we'd count as good, and some of the mistakes that we could make.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 09:33 AM

Come on Kevin, stop putting words into my mouth - go back and read what I actually was saying.

In that exercise, please state anywhere where I said that during that process of evolution of our society that we always got it right, and that we were infallable.

Your example - "it didn't take long for Germany to descend from a kind of relatvely liberal capitalism into what was probably the most evil society that this planet has known." - is a poor one.

As the Germany created under Bismark was rather authoritarian, I take it that you are referring to the Weimar Republic. No Kevin, it didn't take long for Germany to make that descent and the circumstances under which that occurred were also pretty special - it didn't take long to put the matter to rights either. The important thing was that things were seen to be awry and action was taken to put things right - Yes?

Now tell me Kevin, who were the Muslim/Islamic equivalents of Kate of Hardwick, Elizabeth the First, Elizabeth Fry, Florence Nightingale, Marie Currie, etc, etc, (an awe inspiring multitude down through the ages of history) - Now you tell me who the Islamic equivalents were.

Abolition of the Slave trade Act 1807 and the Abolition of Slavery Act 1833 - far enough back for you Kevin?

Relief Acts of 1793 and 1829 regarding religion being an impediment to job or career - far enough back?

Of all the major break-throughs and achievements of the twentieth century (and there were many, in a vast number of fields of endeavour) the one thing that was picked out recently as being the most significant in terms of the benefit to humankind in general was the emancipation of women. Kevin, ask those who sympathise with the viewpoint of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda if they agree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 08:15 AM

To say that as recently as much of the last century our society was "employing the best talents irrespective of nationality, race, religion or gender" you'd really have to stretch the truth to breaking point. If you go further back than that...

Yes, "our system" has roots which go back hundreds, even thousands of years, and you can find pointers towards that kind of things way back in history, along with pointers towards quite other things.

But you don't need to go back far at all to find a culture where women were very restricted in all kinds of ways, even required to wear veils in public, when married woemn had no property rights whatsoever, when black people were repressed or even enslaved, people were excluded from jobs on the basis of their religion.

And our flexible system doesn't always change for the better - it didn't take long for Germany to descend from a kind of relatvely liberal capitalism into what was probably the most evil society that this planet has known.

My point being, we can't afford to feel safe and smug about ourselves. We are quite capable of destroying ourselves, and of destroying what is good about ourselves. We nearly did in the last century.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:55 AM

"So if it evolves and changes is it the same system? Are we the same creature as our evolutionary ancestors?"

Kevin - What particular orange do you want to compare to what particular apple?

A couple of generations, Kevin? Our particular system of government and economy/economic principles that fuel it, have been basically the same for centuries - they have evolved, there have been changes inside the basic framework - that's progress and our society in general welcomes it as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:47 AM

And I didn't even mention the millions of Poles, Ukranians, Russians, French, Belgians, Dutch, Americans, Canadians, Australians.........need I go on?

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:43 AM

McGrath and Ake - I said I would take the kicking without complaint and I understand now where you're coming from.

Ake - at the risk of offending you again (and without meaning to) I'd suggest that your proposition that terrorism poses a far greater threat to us than the Nazis did in WW2 is an outrageous insult to the memory of 6 million Jews, Gypsies and other minorities who died in their death-camps, and two million-plus civilians who died IN THE UK as a result of their NIGHTLY (not just once or twice every couple of years) bombing attacks on our towns and cities. Would I be correct in assuming that you're a resident of North America?

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 06:37 AM

So if it evolves and changes is it the same system? Are we the same creature as our evolutionary ancestors?

"Our system is one based on embracing the new and employing the best talents irrespective of nationality, race, religion or gender." That is a pretty recent development in our culture. You couldn't really have said that about us a couple of generations ago, and there are still many elements which within our culture where this is not true tday. Whatever "our" actually means in that sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 05:31 AM

In answer to your question Akenaton, I will stand by my statement "the survivability of our system is not in doubt". You believe the opposite to be the case, the reasons for your belief in that viewpiont have not really been all that convincing.

As to it being a matter of, "when do they want to do it", I believe that it was tried, in quite a concerted effort in 1973, and that failed completely. If economic terrorism is so easy, why hasn't it been more effective?. Aircraft flying into skyscrapers, bombs being detonated in crowded commuter trains or at packed religious festivals, do not contribute to the advancement of mankind one jot. They do not provide the answers to any of the problems that beset our planet, mainly because the aim of those carrying out those attacks is regression, and stagnation, they may attempt it, but they will not halt progress. They will not eliminate the natural desire of populations, and the societies in which they live, to improve their lot. People throughout the world, do not buy less, or buy differently as a result of these attacks, ways of life do not change dramatically - life goes on pretty much as it did before.

My statement regarding the survivability of our system, is based on the fact that our system is one that depends on evolution and change. Our system is one based on embracing the new and employing the best talents irrespective of nationality, race, religion or gender. Our system is one based on the right to challenge whatever establishment happens to be in place and whatever established dogma happens to be in place at any given time. None of the above can be said to apply to the religious fundamentalism that guides the terrorists of whom you seem to be so much in awe.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:56 PM

Sorry McGrath,I didn't realise you had posted....Hope you dont mind me speaking for you...Best Wishes Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:54 PM

Johnny.....I think you'll find that you've misunderstood McGrath and the current situation regarding terrorism..So you should be given two kickin's, one by McGrath and one by me!!    but as were both too old and frail,an apology will suffice.
The situation today should not be confused with the situation in 1939.
Terror ism is now a much more potent threat than the Nazi's ever were.   A few people can wreck havoc on our economy,and it is almost impossible to stop them. A good start would be for the politicians to start telling the people the truth and stop this stupid posturing,"the war on terror", "Defeating terrorism"   ect.
In reality, terrorism almost always achieves its objectives.
It will be a long haul and survival is far from assured, but the only way for the West is to undermine the terrorists in their heartlands,and this would mean a complete change in Western policy towards the Middle East,beginning with a fair settlement for the Palistinians,and then assuring the Moslem people that Global Capitalism would not be given free reign to devour their culture...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:40 PM

No, I'm not talking about refraining from trying to act effectively against terrorism for fear of reprisals. I'm talking about refraining from doing things which look might like acting against them, but which actually serve to strengthen them.

My point was that invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq didn't achieve anything significant to stop terrorism. If these wars are to be justified this can only be done on other grounds, to do with replacing terrible regimes by regimes that it is at least hoped might be better. Part of the cost of these wars has probably been that they have made it a lot easier for the terrorists to operate.

There is no evidence whatsoever, so far as I am aware, of anyone from Afghanistan or Iraq being involved in September 11th or the other related atrocities.

Afghanistan under the Taliban did provide a sanctuary for a number of Arabs and other supporters of Bin Laden, and training facilities of a kind, though there is precious little evidence of there being any direct involvement in actually carrying out September 11 or the other bombings. The role of Bin Laden and those around him appear to have been far more a matter of ideological encouragement and motivation rather than direct command.

That's an important role, but it seems pretty clear that the idea that it is the kind of organisation that can be destroyed by wiping out its headquarters or disposing of its leadership is to misunderstand what is involved.

As for Iraq - the only part Bin Laden's followers had to play in Saddam's time was as enemies of the regime. In post-Saddam Iraq it is in a far better position to organise, recruit, and carry out killing operations.

Trying to draw analogies with Nazi Germany is looking in the wrong direction. It's a completely different type of enemy, and a completely different type of conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Terror
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 01:40 PM

So McGrath, is your point that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which you agree were justified, shouldn't have been undertaken because of the likelihood of increased terrorist activity as a result? If Britain had adopted that kind of policy in 1939 the whole of Europe (and perhaps far further afield) would have been under German rule now. And what of the oppressed populace of those two countries, should they have been abandoned to their fate? Surely it's the responsibility of the right-thinking man to defend his neighbour, even if it places him in some danger too?

Sorry if I've misunderstood you - I'll stand a kicking without complaint if I did!

Johnny :0)